On Sat, Oct 19, 2013, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 10/18/2013 10:14 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >> >>You are missing the point. Because of the crop factor, FF lenses are >>larger/heavier than APS-C, which in turn are larger/heavier than m4/3. >>The fact that FF bodies are relatively not much larger/heavier than APS-C >>doesn't change the lens size/weight equation. Unless FF can achieve >>significantly better results, why would anyone get it? > > Aahz, I can give you at least one example when the above statement > fails. Pentax SMC DA* 16-50/2.8 is within 10% the same size/weight > as Sigma EX 24-60/2.8. Given that Pentax is somewhat longer on the > long end of the zoom if crop factor is taken into account, the > comparison is also approximate. Yet, Sigma is a full frame lens > which I quite like, whereupon Pentax is cropped one.
That's not a sealed lens, therefore not directly comparable. More importantly, that's not a telephoto lens; the mount and hardware at shorter focal lengths makes more difference, and you start seeing more significant differences out past 100mm/e. What does a 90-375/4 look like? What about a 27-200/3.5-5.6? -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
